Return to Let Him Through, He's A Scientist!
Aeon, as always, very interesting! You might be surprised to learn that Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise are re-making the classic "War of the Worlds." Check it out here.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40705)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 27, 2004 at 1:38 PM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 27, 2004 at 1:38 PM
Yes, I just learned about that. Be interesting to see what they make of it. I missed the recent remake of The Time Machine - was that any good?
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40709)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on August 27, 2004 at 1:51 PM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on August 27, 2004 at 1:51 PM
I didn't particularly care for it, to be honest. Truth is, I loved the original "War of the Worlds" and the original "Time Machine"---and it is no coincidence that they were both George Pal productions. Something about that classic 50s sci-fi that still gets me. :)
They were also immensely influential films in the sci-fi genre.
They were also immensely influential films in the sci-fi genre.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40711)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 27, 2004 at 1:56 PM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 27, 2004 at 1:56 PM
Yes, the original War of the Worlds is terrific, don't get me wrong, but as top-10 sci fi, it can't hope to make the cut, for the reason I mentioned. The George Pal Time Machine is better in that regard - I'll have to think about whether that should be on a top-10 list. Whereas I _don't_ have to think about Forbidden Planet (should be) or Empire Strikes Back (shouldn't be).
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40713)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on August 27, 2004 at 2:25 PM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on August 27, 2004 at 2:25 PM
How about movies like "Planet of the Apes" (the original), or "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? How do you classify such films? Sci-fi? Horror? Monster movies? And what about Spielberg films like "ET" or "Jurassic Park"? The, uh, "interpenetration" of genres here is a bit astounding... just wondering how you'd classify them.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40714)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 27, 2004 at 2:39 PM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 27, 2004 at 2:39 PM
Planet of the Apes is clearly sci-fi - the technology in question is [spoilers!] a nuclear bomb, and in general the ape society offers food for thought w.r.t ours.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers - I guess not. The mere fact that the pods are from outer space doesn't make it science fiction, and indeed pods aren't technology, they're biology - it's like a disease film, I guess. If they used sci/tech to defeat them, then maybe - I'm thinking "The Andromeda Strain" or "Terminal Man" which are both med-thrillers _and_ sci fi (I guess there's an obvious sense in which sticklers could claim that all med-fi is sci-fi, but you get the distinction, no?).
Jurassic Park would have to qualify as sci-fi, although I don't think it's _great_ sci fi.
ET - tougher call. The visitor-from-another-world theme is clearly a subgenre of sci-fi - certainly the visitor uses technology! - so one could argue that it would count, even though it's got more in common with children's fantasy films. If the ET weren't from another planet, but, say, Atlantis, or some lost island of talking bears, no one would call it sci fi, so does it qualify as sci-fi _just_ because it's extraterrestrial? Maybe not.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers - I guess not. The mere fact that the pods are from outer space doesn't make it science fiction, and indeed pods aren't technology, they're biology - it's like a disease film, I guess. If they used sci/tech to defeat them, then maybe - I'm thinking "The Andromeda Strain" or "Terminal Man" which are both med-thrillers _and_ sci fi (I guess there's an obvious sense in which sticklers could claim that all med-fi is sci-fi, but you get the distinction, no?).
Jurassic Park would have to qualify as sci-fi, although I don't think it's _great_ sci fi.
ET - tougher call. The visitor-from-another-world theme is clearly a subgenre of sci-fi - certainly the visitor uses technology! - so one could argue that it would count, even though it's got more in common with children's fantasy films. If the ET weren't from another planet, but, say, Atlantis, or some lost island of talking bears, no one would call it sci fi, so does it qualify as sci-fi _just_ because it's extraterrestrial? Maybe not.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40745)
by Joe C Maurone on August 27, 2004 at 6:41 PM
by Joe C Maurone on August 27, 2004 at 6:41 PM
Aeon, may I suggest that E.T. is less about the science fiction and more about mythology, in the same wau that Star Wars was based on the hero cycle? George Lucas, as you may know, modeled SW on the hero cycle as described in Joseph Campbell's THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES, and Spielberg has a recurring theme similiar to Jung's theory of adolescent individuation.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40774)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 9:09 AM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 9:09 AM
Yes, that sounds right.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40777)
by John G. Pappas on August 28, 2004 at 9:52 AM
by John G. Pappas on August 28, 2004 at 9:52 AM
Aeon, why is not Darth Vader saying something about the human condition via technology or technological advancement - technology in the service of evil? In the opposite sense, what about the original Robo Cop? I thought that a good sci-fi film, if that meets your criteria? Oui?
John
John
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40784)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 10:59 AM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 10:59 AM
Darth Vader isn't really "saying" anything - he's another iteration of the powerful-and-menacing-villain trope. His technology in the service of evil isn't significantly different, IMO, from a wild-west gunslinger or a nazi fighter plane.
OTOH, you're completely right about the original RoboCop.
OTOH, you're completely right about the original RoboCop.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40787)
by Roderick T. Long on August 28, 2004 at 11:33 AM
by Roderick T. Long on August 28, 2004 at 11:33 AM
I think Aeon may be underestimating the extent to which Vader's character is about dehumanization via technology. The conflict between humanism and technology is a theme that runs through the original trilogy: e.g. Obi-wan's ghost telling Luke to turn off the remote and use his intuition instead, Obi-wan's telling Luke that Vader is now more machine than man, the super-duper tech powers of the Empire vs. low-tech Rebels and even lower-tech Ewoks ....
And in defense of the more recent movies, I'll point out that their central theme is a libertarian and timely one: how an apparently benevolent government manufactures crises and then uses those crises as an excuse to exapnd its powers "temporarily" -- a process that ends up converting a peaceful republic into a warmongering empire.
And in defense of the more recent movies, I'll point out that their central theme is a libertarian and timely one: how an apparently benevolent government manufactures crises and then uses those crises as an excuse to exapnd its powers "temporarily" -- a process that ends up converting a peaceful republic into a warmongering empire.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40791)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 11:57 AM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 11:57 AM
Libertarian? The main villains are the "trade federation." Generic bashing of "business interests," of capitalism and globalization. It glorifies queens and princesses and lords. But you make an interesting point about Vader - I'll give that some thought.
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40817)
by Roderick T. Long on August 29, 2004 at 9:56 AM
by Roderick T. Long on August 29, 2004 at 9:56 AM
What's wrong with bashing big business? There's a long and honourable libetarian tradition of doing so. Big business -- in the Star Wars universe and in the real universe -- is often in league with government and eager to advance itself through force and government favouritism rather than through peaceful trade and commerce, and is one of the main forces driving the expansion of the state.
I'm not suggesting that Lucas himself holds the libertarian rather than the socialist version of business-bashing; but as he tells the story in the movies it's perfectly consistent with the libertarian version.
I'm not suggesting that Lucas himself holds the libertarian rather than the socialist version of business-bashing; but as he tells the story in the movies it's perfectly consistent with the libertarian version.
buisness bashing sci-fi
(#40855)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 30, 2004 at 8:50 AM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 30, 2004 at 8:50 AM
Roderick, it's true of course that big business "is often in league with government and eager to advance itself through force and government favouritism [sic] rather than through peaceful trade and commerce," but Lucas hardly seems to be advancing that line. He's just recycling the generic trade-is-bad line that is all too familiar in Hollywood. Note how, in the first movie, Tatooine's seemingly laissez-faire society is dominated by thugs and criminals - Mos Eisly is a wretched hive of scum and vilainy. By the time we get to the fourth film, it's a slave society! Lucas thinks that unfettered capitalism = domination by criminal gangs and the enslavement of others. Is that "consistent with the libertarian vision"?
Re: War of the Worlds remake
(#40795)
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 12:24 PM
by Aeon J. Skoble on August 28, 2004 at 12:24 PM
I don't take Vader's dehumanization to be the result of technology. Going over to the Dark Side is a moral failing. He's not even that much if a tech head- he admonishes Tarkin not to be too proud of the technological marvel, reminding him them that it's no match for the force (which turns out to be correct). It's not clear that the technology is thematically central here at all - compare, e.g., Kurosawa's _Yojimbo_. The main bad guy introduces firearms into the sword culture -- that's technology-as-plot-point, but it's hardly sci-fi.
Return to Let Him Through, He's A Scientist!
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on August 27, 2004 at 1:22 PM